Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Nancy Grace is high up on my list of hated people. The greatest thing about this verdict was seeing her reaction. I just wish the cameras were rolling on her when the verdict was actually read. I would pay good money to see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Casey's lawyers had nothing to do with this hoax.

So the media gets to just say whatever they want, have no ethical responsibility because three years ago the family went to them for help in locating the girl? I think not.

It's Nancy Grace. "Ethical responsibility" is not in her vocabulary. I still believe the Duke lacrosse team is waiting for their apology.

Point me to the part of the jury instructions that state this. You and me both know the cause of death was impossible to determine, a major roadblock to getting a conviction.

Law School 101

Opening statements are not evidence or testimony. They are not to be considered during deliberations. Opening statements only state what the prosecution and/or the defense INTEND to show during the trial with witnesses and evidence.

Through opening statements each side lets the jury know what evidence they will present and what this evidence is supposed to prove.This is the primary opportunity for attorneys to present their positions to the jury prior to the introduction of the evidence upon which the jurors will base their decisions.

Baez opening statement included drowning ... which he did not prove. He included sexual abuse by George and Lee ... which he did not prove. Yessss, Jose Baez muddied the waters with his opening statement and the witnesses he used but he never proved drowning nor sexual abuse. He won the case but it was a dirty win. Certainly not cause for celebration.

I have hundreds of pictures of my kids going into our pool and they are alive and well.

Now you tell me which raw video I need to watch that proves Caylee Anthony drowned. This is just speculation.

Caylee Marie Anthony didn't drown. I don't think it was premeditated. I think Casey was using chloroform on the child to get her to sleep and placing duct tape over Caylee's mouth just in case she woke up and cried.

The prosecution came closer to proving their speculation than Baez did on his off the wall speculation attempts. But he won with all the confusion, hemming and hawing around. The prosecution did mess up thinking they had a slam dunk case. Maybe they should have left the death penalty off the table.

hahahahahaha And one is to believe a compulsive liar.... Casey told me ... Casey told me ... Casey told me she was working at Universal ... Casey told me she was in big meeting in Tampa ... Casey told me she was in Jacksonville .... Casey told me ....

In addition that is the opening statement. Baez did not prove drowning. Pictures of a Cindy and Caylee getting in a pool doesn't prove drowning.

Opening statements are not evidence or testimony. They are not to be considered during deliberations. Opening statements only state what the prosecution and/or the defense INTEND to show during the trial with witnesses and evidence.

Through opening statements each side lets the jury know what evidence they will present and what this evidence is supposed to prove.This is the primary opportunity for attorneys to present their positions to the jury prior to the introduction of the evidence upon which the jurors will base their decisions.

And this was addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Since testimony (the defense questioning George) and evidence (the pictures) were entered, it can be considered.

It's a bit of a technicality, or gray area rather, but still acceptable.

Quote:

Baez opening statement included drowning ... which he did not prove. He included sexual abuse by George and Lee ... which he did not prove. Yessss, Jose Baez muddied the waters with his opening statement and the witnesses he used but he never proved drowning nor sexual abuse

He did not have to prove it. He simply needed it to introduce enough reasonable doubt.

Quote:

He won the case but it was a dirty win. Certainly not cause for celebration.

His job is to have his client acquitted within the ethical standards laid out by the Florida Bar. Nothing else matters.

Quote:

I have hundreds of pictures of my kids going into our pool and they are alive and well.

And this is relevant how?

Quote:

Now you tell me which raw video I need to watch that proves Caylee Anthony drowned. This is just speculation.

Are you dense? How many more times do I have to explain that this is NOT speculation, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of doing so?

Let's try this again for the slow people. If I come home and find the front picture window of my house broken with a baseball on the floor inside, I can assume that the neighbor kid is responsible because I know he likes to play baseball in the street. This is an example of speculation.

Conversely, I can tell you that on July 8th, I burnt my dinner by leaving it on the stove for too long. Now I can not prove this happened as I was home alone, took no pictures and the evidence has long been disposed of, but the fact that I have no proof does NOT mean my statement is speculation. You're missing the forest for the trees when you tie speculation to a lack of proof.

Here's a very simple litmus test for you to figure out what is and is not speculation.

"I think _____ happened" = Speculation

"I saw ______ happen" = Not Speculation

Quote:

Caylee Marie Anthony didn't drown. I don't think it was premeditated. I think Casey was using chloroform on the child to get her to sleep and placing duct tape over Caylee's mouth just in case she woke up and cried.

Holy hell. You're here running down the jurors and you don't even know what speculation is? Where's my facepalm picture when I need it?

I want you to focus on four words here. Contemplation, consideration, reasoning, supposition. Because Casey Anthony had first person knowledge of the drowning, the defense's admission (also focus on that word; admission) is NOT speculation. They did not say she COULD have drowned. They say she DID drown.

I wonder, had the jury turned in a guilty verdict, would you be defending them the same way? It seems your defense is of the justice system, so I would guess you would find a good defense in either verdict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I misread your question. I thought you said "It's not speculation".

My mistake.

No, it didn't. Many legal experts agree on this.

And that is, by definition, reasonable doubt. It's a plausible explanation that Casey drowned in the pool. It's also plausible that George concealed or help to conceal the death.

Or took the hit on his reputation to save his daughter from the death penalty. That is parental sacrifice. Casey did not understand parental sacrifice. Unfortunately, her daughter paid the price for her selfishness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Yes, I've read it and referred other people to it more than once.

Also just FYI, jury instructions are fairly uniform for the state of Florida.

Are you serious? Granted, I am exponentially smarter than the average person, but everything in that document is extremely clear to me and it only took me a few minutes to read the whole thing.

What evidence do you think they should have reviewed?

Those who think they are "exponentially smarter than the average person" have a very difficult time understanding how that lowly average person can not understand something so seemingly simple to them. Since you think that you are (and I am not saying you are or not, doesn't matter what I think, only that you do) you will NEVER agree with the "average" people. You will never see things as the average person does. Therefore, you will continue to get frustrated with their views. If you find yourself having to repeat your views over and over again and you enjoy doing it in order to teach what you know, fine. But, if you are getting so frustrated that it is making you angry, why bother? You know what you know and you believe it to be true. So be it. Either way, it will never change the outcome of this case.

And, since most people are of average intelligence and they continue to ask the same questions and wonder the same things about this case, what would ever make you think that a jury of less-than-average intelligence would just "get it"? Just because they gave a verdict you agree with?

Who was running with "Casey" in the "sighting?" One of her former attorneys. Her attorneys are making a mockery of this situation and it's sad. They are going to cash in on Caylee's death, as will many other people, including her own mother.

The media is the media. They have wide latitude, fortunately or unfortunately, whichever side people choose to believe of their stories. You don't get it both ways with them. Ethical responsibility is in the eyes of the beholder. The reporters on this story have had just as many people saying they did a wonderful job of reporting as you and I say they did not. No lawsuits have been filed against them and no criminal charges are pending or even being discussed. Had the family/their representatives not called in the media and nationally known searchers, had Casey chosen not to lie, this would have all been different, like it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Casey's lawyers had nothing to do with this hoax.

So the media gets to just say whatever they want, have no ethical responsibility because three years ago the family went to them for help in locating the girl? I think not.

Who was running with "Casey" in the "sighting?" One of her former attorneys. Her attorneys are making a mockery of this situation and it's sad. They are going to cash in on Caylee's death, as will many other people, including her own mother.

The media is the media. They have wide latitude, fortunately or unfortunately, whichever side people choose to believe of their stories. You don't get it both ways with them. Ethical responsibility is in the eyes of the beholder. The reporters on this story have had just as many people saying they did a wonderful job of reporting as you and I say they did not. No lawsuits have been filed against them and no criminal charges are pending or even being discussed. Had the family/their representatives not called in the media and nationally known searchers, had Casey chosen not to lie, this would have all been different, like it or not.

It wasn't Casey and it was her FORMER attorney who she no longer has contact with.

Yes, the people saying they did a wonderful job are the same ones who can't/won't get over this case and who are calling for Anthony, Mason, Baez, to die/be tortured. I'll take those accolades with a grain of salt.

The media is supposed to be objective and report facts. They are not supposed to give their opinions or try to sway people either way.

I am beginning think you are dense and just want to argue. I know I am correct and I know you are wrong. Bless your heart you can't help it if you are dumb as dirt.

Casey Anthony walked out a free woman but she killed her child. That is the facts! The American Justice System failed the real victim Caylee Marie Anthony.

I will not waste my time arguing when the majority of the WORLD knows a murderer walked in America.

The End

I don't know how anyone can look at her lies and her behavior after her child died and come to the conclusion she's innocent. You are correct that the majority of us know a murderer walked free. We can't do anything about that other than be outraged and hope laws are changed as a result.

It's a bit of a technicality, or gray area rather, but still acceptable.

He did not have to prove it. He simply needed it to introduce enough reasonable doubt.

His job is to have his client acquitted within the ethical standards laid out by the Florida Bar. Nothing else matters.

And this is relevant how?

Are you dense? How many more times do I have to explain that this is NOT speculation, or are you just being obtuse for the sake of doing so?

Let's try this again for the slow people. If I come home and find the front picture window of my house broken with a baseball on the floor inside, I can assume that the neighbor kid is responsible because I know he likes to play baseball in the street. This is an example of speculation.

Conversely, I can tell you that on July 8th, I burnt my dinner by leaving it on the stove for too long. Now I can not prove this happened as I was home alone, took no pictures and the evidence has long been disposed of, but the fact that I have no proof does NOT mean my statement is speculation. You're missing the forest for the trees when you tie speculation to a lack of proof.

Here's a very simple litmus test for you to figure out what is and is not speculation.

"I think _____ happened" = Speculation

"I saw ______ happen" = Not Speculation

Speaking of speculation.

There are good analogies, bad analogies, and your analogy about speculation, the worst. Anyway,

It's a bad day for the legal system when mere questions by a lawyer become 'evidence.'

In your world, there'd never be a conviction in 'no body' cases and few, if any, if little remains of a body. Reward the defendant for a great job of hiding the victim.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.